Zoo Licensing Act 1981 Appendix 11 Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice/ National Assembly for Wales Standards of Modern Zoo Practice

Inspection Report

Date of inspection: 17th /18th November 2015 Date report completed: 28 December 2015

Name of applicant or current licence holder: Mr David Stanley Gill

Name and address of zoo: South Lakes Safari Zoo Ltd. Broughton Road Dalton-in -Furness

Postcode: LA15 8JR

Tel no: 01229 466066 Licence Number:

Date of last formal inspection: 11th November 2014 Type of last formal inspection: Special

Timing of next formal inspection:

Type of next formal inspection:

Type of inspection Statutory composition of inspection team

Section 10 Periodical: 2 Defra/Welsh Government nominees; 1 LA vet; option of up to 2 more from LA. ✔

Section 11 Special: Any number of competent LA authorised appointees ........................................

Section 14(1)(b) dispensation renewal under section 6(1A)(a) (where a direction has been made that section 10 shall not apply):

Defra/Welsh Government nominee/s.................................................................

Section 14(2) dispensation Periodical:

Defra/Welsh Government nominee/s.................................................................

For a licence inspection (Section 4(1A)(b)) and a significant change inspection (Section 9A(8)) please use the inspection form at Appendix 11A of the Standards.

| Name and designation of inspector(s) | Name of zoo representative(s) | |-------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Anna Meredith MRCVS (Part 1) | Christina Fischer, Director (since resigned as Director) | | Nick Jackson (Part 2) | Frieda Schreiber, Director | | Matthew Brash MRCVS (LA appointed vet) | Andrew Greenwood FRCVS (consultant vet) | | Richard Garnett, Principal Environmental Health Officer, Barrow Borough Council. | Karen Brewer Rick Browne, local vet (for part) John McIntosh David Gill, Owner (for part) |

When this form has been completed and signed the original must be sent to the local authority. If the zoo is owned by the local authority, the local authority must send a copy of the completed form to Defra where the zoo is situated in England or to the Welsh Government, where the zoo is situated in Wales. Preamble to inspectors’ report

Information and guidance about the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (ZLA) is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-biodiversity-and-ecosystems-at-home-and-abroad/supporting-pages/species-protection and http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/zos/?lang=en

Preamble to inspectors’ report\*, including any comments about the current dispensation status, if applicable.

South Lakes Wild Animal Park, recently rebranded as the Safari Zoo, opened in 1994 and has undergone major expansion in recent years, along with recent changes in management structure. The zoo offers a highly interactive experience where visitors can wander among a large variety of free-ranging species in mixed exhibits and in two walk-through aviaries, and is a significant visitor attraction in the area.

Until September 2015 the Director was David Gill, the owner, and at the time of the inspection the inspectors were informed that joint directorship had been recently transferred from Mr Gill to Christina Fischer and Frieda Schrieber (Chair), with David Gill remaining as Conservation Manager. The licence currently is held by David Gill, but a request was made to the LA to transfer it to the new Director.

However, since the dates of the inspection and during preparation of this report, the inspectors have subsequently been made aware via ongoing correspondence with the Local Authority that Christina Fischer has resigned her position as co-Director, but has stayed on the staff. Initially this left Frieda Schrieber is the sole Director, but the inspectors now understand that Mr Gill has reverted to being Director again. These changes have had a direct bearing on some of the recommendations and conditions made in this report.

The zoo has a historical and ongoing catalogue of a large number of licence conditions, directions of compliance and special inspections (most recently November 2014), details of which were supplied to the inspection team prior to the inspection.

\*this might include general background about the zoo (type of collection, size etc) and any relevant information or comments from the pre-inspection audit Findings at inspection

Guidance note: Where possible a Yes, No or Not Applicable (N/A) answer should be given. Where not all criteria are met for a particular question, comments and clarification should be made indicating where any deficits occur. If appropriate, means of correction or improvement should be included as Conditions or Recommendations under ‘Additional conditions’ or Additional space’ towards the end of the form.

| 1. Provision of food and water | Marking Yes No N/A | Comments/clarification | |--------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------| | **Section 1A(c)(ii) ZLA 1981:** | | | | 1.1. Are animals provided with a high standard of nutrition? | Yes | But needs complete review with veterinary and specialist nutritional input (see Condition). | | 1.2. Is food and drink that is supplied appropriate for the species/individual? | Yes | But see above, Recommend revision of hand-fed diets as many are inappropriate, eg cereal mixes to mara and macropods. | | 1.3. Are supplies of food and water: (a) kept hygienically? | Yes | But evidence of rodent presence in fruit/veg prep area and food store. Fresh fish and fresh meat should not be prepared in the same immediate area, particularly where the fish is for non-carnivores, e.g. penguins. (see Condition) | | (b) prepared hygienically? | Yes | Designated hand-wash for staff in meat prep area required. (see condition) | | (c) supplied to the animal hygienically? | Yes | | | 1.4. Has natural feeding behaviour been adequately considered to ensure that all animals have access to food and drink? | Yes | | | 1.5. Are feeding methods safe for staff and animals? | Yes | | | 1.6. Is feeding by visitors permitted? (a) if 'yes', is it properly controlled? | Yes | This was not observed directly. See notes re types of food given. Total amounts fed are controlled. Feeding of lemurs, penguins and cats directly supervised, but not in walk-through areas. |

| 2. Provision of suitable environment | | | |-------------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------| | **Section 1A(c)(i) ZLA 1981:** | | | | 2.1. Are the animals provided with an environment well adapted to meet the physical, psychological and social needs of the species to which they belong? | Yes | But baboon internal area is too small for the number of animals and no enrichment is provided. Animals are enclosed here for prolonged periods in winter with no enrichment or bedding material. Flamingo flooring inadequate. (see Condition) | | 2.2. Are the following environmental parameters appropriate: (a) temperature? | Yes | But new bear dens currently have no ventilation. | | (b) ventilation? | Yes | | | (c) lighting? | Yes | | | (d) noise levels? | Yes | | | (e) any other environmental parameters? | Yes | | | 2. Provision of suitable environment (contd.) | Marking Yes No N/A | Comments/clarification | |---------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------| | 2.3. Are there satisfactory measures in place to safely confine the animals? | No | Many enclosures are adequate but see notes and conditions. | | 2.4. Do animal enclosures have sufficient shelter and refuge areas? | Yes | Not outdoor Africa area (See Condition). 2 Nyala recently died in association with a period of extreme wet and cold weather. | | 2.5. Do animal enclosures provide sufficient space? | Yes | But not indoor baboon enclosure. | | 2.6. Are backup facilities for life support systems adequate? | Yes | 2 diesel generators on site. | | 2.7. Is the cleaning of the accommodation satisfactory? | Yes | | | 2.8. Is the standard of maintenance adequate for: (a) the buildings? | Yes | Where insulation material is exposed in the roof of the bear dens peafowl were observed eating it. | | (b) the fences? | Yes | Some areas of delapidation of fencing requiring routine maintenance e.g. bottom of giraffe paddock. | | 2.9. Is all drainage effective and safe? | Yes | NB The inspection took place on days with unusually severe rainfall leading to localised flooding. |

### 3. Provision of animal health care

**Section 1A(c)(ii) ZLA 1981:**

| 3.1. Are the animals provided with a high standard of animal husbandry? | Yes | See Condition 30 re keeper contact. | | 3.2. Do animals on display to the public appear in good health? | Yes | Except a few lame flamingos, lame crowned crane, thin capybara and mongoose with mange. | | 3.3. Are observations of condition and health made and recorded? | Yes | Daily diaries maintained in good detail, although some animals are not individually identified in them. | | 3.4. Do animals receive prompt and appropriate attention when problems are noted? | Yes | See veterinary notes. | | 3.5. Are enclosures designed and operated in such a way that social interaction problems are avoided? | Yes | But there is a narrow tapering corner in the bear enclosure where one animal could be cornered by another. |

**On-site facilities**

| 3.6. Are catch-up and restraint facilities adequate? | Yes | But the new bear dens do not currently allow direct visual assessment or access for darting etc. | | 3.7. Is darting equipment satisfactory? | Yes | Blow pipe on site. Recently purchased dart gun had not arrived at the time of inspection. | | 3.8. Are on-site veterinary facilities adequate? | Yes | | | 3. Provision of animal health care (contd.) | Marking | Comments/clarification | |------------------------------------------|---------|------------------------| | **Veterinary care**<br>Section 1A(c)(ii) ZLA 1981: | | | | 3.9. Are the animals provided with a documented and maintained programme of preventative and curative veterinary care and nutrition? | No | We acknowledge that there is a written protocol document in place and the addition of Andrew Greenwood (IZVG) as a consultant vet has greatly improved the routine care, however the team had serious concerns over the level of control and oversight by Rick Browne, and the degree of apparent diagnosis and prescribing by the co-director, who is a qualified vet but not MRCVS. (See notes and Condition re veterinary programme). | | 3.10. Is there a system for the regular review of clinical and pathological records? | No | No structured system in place. See Condition re veterinary programme. | | 3.11. Are appropriate veterinary records kept? | No | See Condition re veterinary programme. | | 3.12. Are medicines kept and disposed of correctly? | Yes | | | 3.13. Are controlled drugs used and recorded satisfactorily? | N/A | | | 3.14. Are appropriate antidotes available? | N/A | | | 3.15. Are post mortem examination arrangements satisfactory? | No | See Condition re veterinary programme. Inspectors noted that the overall annual mortality level is high, at around 10% | | **Isolation and containment** | | | | 3.16. Is adequate reserve accommodation available for isolation of animals for: | Yes | But not for the Andean bears in the den area. | | (a) assessment? | Yes | | | (b) treatment? | Yes | | | (c) recovery? | Yes | | | (d) quarantine (where required)? | Select | Quarantine of psittacine birds must not be in same building/air space as existing psittacines. | | **Sanitation and control of disease**<br>Section 1A(e) ZLA 1981: | | | | 3.17. Are satisfactory measures in place to prevent the intrusion of pests and vermin into the zoo premises? | Yes | | | 3.18. Does it appear that general sanitation and pest control are effective? | No | There are ongoing rodent problems despite an in-house vermin control programme, eg rodent droppings were seen in the food prep and foodstore areas. | | 4. Provision of an opportunity to express most normal behaviour | Marking | Comments/clarification | |---------------------------------------------------------------|---------|------------------------| | 4.1. Do the accommodation and management regimes encourage normal behaviour patterns and minimise any abnormal behaviour, taking into account current enrichment and husbandry guidelines? | Yes | | | 4.2. Are animals of social species normally maintained in compatible social groups? | Yes | |

| 5. Provision of protection from fear and distress | Marking | Comments/clarification | |--------------------------------------------------|---------|------------------------| | 5.1. Are the animals handled only by or under the supervision of appropriately experienced staff? | Yes | | | 5.2. Is physical contact between animals and the public consistent with the animals' welfare? | Yes | | | 5.3. Are interactions between the animals such that they are not excessively stressful? | Yes | |

| 6. Transportation and movement of live animals | Marking | Comments/clarification | |------------------------------------------------|---------|------------------------| | 6.1. Can the zoo demonstrate a knowledge of, and compliance with, the regulations covering transportation of animals, and provide copies of certificates to show compliance when transportation has occurred? | Yes | Specialist commercial animal transport companies are used. | | 6.2. Can the zoo demonstrate that: i) transport and movement equipment is in good order? | Yes | | | ii) facilities suitable for lifting, crating and transportation of all the types of animals kept within the zoo to destinations both inside and outside the zoo are readily available? | Yes | | | iii) catching and transportation techniques take account of the animal's temperament and escape behaviour in order to minimise injury, damage and distress? | Yes | | | iv) adequate provision is made for the animal's and the public's safety and well-being while the animal is being transported or kept away from the zoo? | Yes | | | Section 1A(a) ZLA 1981: | Marking | Comments/clarification | |--------------------------|---------|------------------------| | 7.1. Is the zoo participating in at least one of the following: | Yes | The Zoo is involved in and raises funds for a commendable number of in situ projects. | | (i) research from which conservation benefits accrue to species of wild animals? | Yes | | | (ii) training in relevant conservation skills? | No | | | (iii) the exchange of information relating to the conservation of species of wild animals? | Yes | Interpretation and information throughout zoo re in situ projects. The development of new interpretative signs is linked to the in situ projects that the Zoo supports. | | iv) where appropriate, breeding of wild animals in captivity? | Yes | | | (v) where appropriate, the repopulation of an area with, or the reintroduction into the wild of, wild animals? | No | | | Section 1A(b) ZLA 1981: | Marking | Comments/clarification | | 7.2. Is the zoo promoting public education and awareness in relation to the conservation of biodiversity, in particular by providing information about the species of wild animals kept in the zoo and their natural habitats? | Yes | A new education officer is in post and she is applying energy and enthusiasm to the development of a new education programme. Much of the signage and interpretation was absent or in transition at the time of the inspection, as it is undergoing a process of rebranding and updating. Sufficient new signage was seen, which is of high quality. The policy of mixing species from different continents and habitats in the same enclosure is counter to modern zoo education philosophy and practice. | | 7.3. Where appropriate are animals managed in a way consistent with the conservation needs of the species, (such as exchange between zoos, accommodation to encourage natural behaviour and breeding etc)? | Yes | | | 7.4. Are on-site education facilities adequate for the resources of the collection? | Yes | | | 7.5. Are the conservation efforts adequate for the resources of the collection? | Yes | | | 7.6. Are the research efforts adequate for the resources of the collection? | No | There are no highly developed research initiatives. | | 7.7. Is captive breeding properly managed? | Yes | But we note breed and cull policy for some species. Others, like the ring-tailed lemurs, are not subject to any genetic management. | | 8. Public safety | Marking | Comments/clarification | |------------------|---------|------------------------| | **Section 1A(d) ZLA 1981:** | | | | 8.1. Are there satisfactory measures in place to prevent the escape of animals? | Yes | But not in the new Africa House where the temporary hay bale enclosure is insecure and has resulted in escapes. | | 8.2. Are there satisfactory measures in place to be taken in the event of any escape or unauthorised release of animals? | Yes | There is a written protocol in place, but the document needs updating to clarify specifically the role of the vet in escape procedures, particularly when new dart gun arrives. | | 8.3. Are escape drills carried out four times a year, recorded and regularly reviewed (at least two drills should include the escape of a Category 1 animal where present)? | Yes | Only three (one category 1) this year by the time of the inspection - one more Category 1 will be needed by the end of the year. | | 8.4. Will the perimeter deter unauthorised entry and aid the confinement of zoo stock? | Yes | But in many areas vegetation is growing up and over the perimeter and must be removed (see Condition). | | 8.5. Do stand-off barriers appear adequate? | Yes | Except at bear enclosure, next to indoor kangaroo house access (see Condition), and electric fence warning sign needed here. | | 8.6. Are adequate warning signs provided? | Yes | | | 8.7. Are prohibited areas appropriately signed? | Yes | | | 8.8. Are exits clearly marked and accessible? | Yes | | | 8.9. Do public areas, walkways and buildings appear safe? | Yes | Except ongoing issue with engineer’s report for walkways (see Condition). | | 8.10. Are trees regularly inspected and appropriate remedial action taken? | Yes | Done in house. | | 8.11. Have appropriate risk assessments for direct contact by the public with animals been carried out? | Yes | But a photograph at the main entrance depicts direct contact between a visitor and a lemur. | | 8.12. Are the special safety requirements for walk-through or drive-through exhibits adequately met? | Yes | But we note 9 bite injuries so far in 2015 recorded in accident book. A written review and action plan is required for feeding of animals by public (see Condition). | | 9. Records | Marking | Comments/clarification | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Section 1A(f) ZLA 1981:** | | | | 9.1. Are there up-to-date records of the zoo’s collection, including | Yes | ZIMS | | records of: | | | | (i) the numbers of different animals? | Yes | However there is doubt over the accuracy of recording of escapes and discrepancies were noted between the daily diaries and verbal reports. Deaths are recorded, but causes of deaths are not always recorded and diagnosis of cause of death often made by non MRCVS vet. There is often no additional sampling/histopathology etc by IZVG (eg only 3 primates in the last year were sent to IZVG). | | (ii) acquisitions, births, deaths, disposals and escapes of animals? | Yes | | | (iii) the causes of any such deaths? | Yes | | | (iv) the health of the animals? | Select | | | 9.2. Are daily diaries maintained, and do they contain appropriate | Yes | Generally very good, detailed information recorded. | | information? | | | | 9.3. Are animal stock records clear and up-to-date? | Yes | | | 9.4. Are annual stock records completed in the correct format and | Yes | | | submitted to the local authority? | | | | 9.5. Are animal source and destination records kept? | Yes | ZIMS | | 9.6. Are archived records secure? | Yes | | | **10. Miscellaneous** | | | | 10.1. Do staff numbers and training of staff appear adequate? | Yes | See notes | | 10.2. Is the management structure and organisation of staff adequate to | Yes | The new management structure was only implemented in November 2015, so it was difficult to make an accurate assessment at the time of the inspection. Subsequent further changes made between the inspection and finalising this report have raised additional serious concerns (see notes and condition). | | ensure compliance with the Standards at all times? | | | | 10.3. Are effective risk assessments carried out where appropriate? | Yes | A simplified version of key points for day to day use by keepers would be helpful with detailed risk assessment as back up. | | 10.4. Has an ethical review process been established and implemented? | Yes | There are records of meetings for 2012 and September 2015 but no other minutes/records available. (see Condition) | | 10.5. Are public toilet facilities adequate and serviced? | Yes | | | 10.6. Are parking facilities adequate? | Yes | | | 10.7. Is a First Aid policy and accident reporting and recording system | Yes | | | in place? | | | | 11. Associated legislation | Marking Yes No N/A | Comments/clarification | |-----------------------------|-------------------|------------------------| | 11.1. Is electrical equipment routinely serviced? | Yes | | | 11.2. Have fire precautions been agreed and implemented? | Yes | To be checked by LA | | 11.3. Is refuse and clinical waste disposed of correctly? | Yes | | | 11.4. Are the required needs of disabled visitors met? | Yes | | | 12. Compliance check including licence conditions | | | | 12.1. Is the current licence or a copy on public display at each public entrance? | Yes | | | 12.2. Is adequate Public Liability Insurance current? | Yes | | | 12.3. Have any Additional licence conditions been met? | Yes | However; The muck heap has not been moved away from the enclosure fence. A new report on the structural integrity of the walkways has not been received. No written report has been received from Inspector Telford regarding firearms. No evidence of staff CPD was provided. | Additional space

The following space is provided for:

- additional notes and comments on the answers to the earlier questions
- recommendations (other than in respect of grant or refusal of a licence and any specific conditions recommended for a licence) including those based on comments already made to earlier questions
- any general remarks which the inspecting team may wish to record

Comments and Recommendations:

01. The inspectors note and commend the overall excellent hard work and dedication of the keeping staff and administration team. At the time of the inspection the inspectors were pleased to see the recent change of structure of governance and senior management that would empower the new Director to focus on food and implement change. We strongly hoped that this would enable the zoo to move forward in a progressive way that reflects current thinking and best practice in the national and international zoo community.

02. The decision by the inspection team to recommend that a new licence for South Lakes Safari Zoo should not be granted at its due date, unless a Condition regarding the management structure has been met, is not taken lightly. It must be understood that the inspectors are keen to see the zoo develop and thrive in line with modern zoo standards. The inspectors commend Mr David Gill for his initial decision to step back from the running of the Zoo to concentrate on its conservation role, but do not believe that at the time of the inspection, or subsequently, sufficient progress has been made in this respect, and note that this decision was subsequently reversed during the compilation of this final report. This is no longer a small zoo and it houses a large and diverse number of species. Suitable management processes must be in place before a new licence is issued to enable the Zoo to meet all its legal obligations, particularly in respect of Sections 3, 6, 9 and 10 of the SSSMP. These have been areas of concern and flagged as issues repeatedly over a number of years at previous inspections. The inspection of November 2015 has highlighted 32 Conditions that the inspectors believe must be applied to the licence. This is a considerable number of Conditions for a zoo of this size, and many of these result from the repeated failure to implement fully previous Conditions, thus aggravating the inspectors' concern to the inspectors that the fact is that as this zoo grows, it relies heavily on the owner's experience implementing out of date practices and refusing to implement modern zoo practices. In the inspectors' opinion this has resulted in animal welfare issues, a higher than expected mortality rate amongst the animals, higher than expected incidents (such as injuries to the public from animals) and placing both staff and the public potentially in danger. The new management structure must contain a competent, suitably qualified and experienced full-time Director (or Senior Manager). This individual will have to day to day responsibility for the running of the Zoo, will be able to make decisions independent of the owner and will be fully responsible to the licensing authority for the conduct of the Zoo and all its on-site activities. This will be a full-time post and therefore cannot be someone who will spend large parts of the year absent from the Zoo.

03. Whilst it is acknowledged that the zoo has demonstrated imagination and sometimes innovative animal display techniques since its founding, it is believed by the inspectors that keeping species from different continents and habitats together in the same enclosure runs counter to modern zoo education practice and gives a distorted and unnatural view to the visiting public. The inspectors believe that the animal welfare, transmission, and behaviour of the animals, even if these are not currently apparent.

04. The inspectors spent some time assessing the issue of the free flying macaques and despite some difficulty getting a definitive view of the numbers and species we were eventually provided with a list of the species by Mr David Gill at the time of the inspection and by commenting on the relevance or otherwise of such legislation as the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The inspectors have concluded that the birds are not part of the South Lakes Safari Zoo animal inventory. They are therefore not protected by the Zoo Licensing Act and are not subject to the conditions of the licence. This view is based on the fact that the birds are not trained to return to Zoo property (and therefore are unlikely to be seen as "kept" by the Zoo) and are not kept in a licence compliant manner. It is likely that the birds are strongly encouraged to the local authority that if there is any evidence that the birds are encouraged onto Zoo property, by for example deliberate feeding, then this might change an interpretation of the birds' status in terms of zoo licensing. The inspectors note that staff are currently monitoring and recording the behaviour of the macaques and their whereabouts in the Zoo grounds every two hours.

05. All the keeping staff should have a structured development and training programme to include external CPD and formal qualifications such as the DMZAA at Spofforth College.

06. The inspectors were concerned that some animal diets e.g. pelican birds, ferrets, foxes and public feeding diets for macaques, capybaras, marmosets, were nutritionally inadequate and do not reflect current knowledge and best practice. There should be a full documented dietary review for all species with veterinary input (including from Andrew Greenwood), to incorporate current nutritional requirements for relevant species.

07. There should be a properly developed collection plan covering all species which includes the rationale for keeping the species, plans for future, etc.

08. The inspectors were greatly concerned about an apparent lack of consultation and inclusion of input from staff and vets in enclosure design and an apparent failure to follow original design specifications. The inspectors believe that the current enclosure plans should include staff and veterinary input.

09. The inspectors were dismayed and shocked to see lice and mites held together with barb wire used as temporary holding for mixed exhibit of Bearded Caracals, wildcats, nyalas and Zebras in the Africa House. Such inadequate and insecure holding arrangements should not be part of modern zoo practice.

10. The inspectors would strongly recommend that the data collection described in the report is the result of a poor decision-making process which the inspectors hope will no longer occur under a new management structure.

11. The involvement of Andrew Greenwood (EVG) in the Zoo's veterinary care is commendable, however the overall veterinary programme in the Zoo is inadequate and needs to be radically revised to bring it into line with modern zoo veterinary practice. The current arrangement of two practices, a local vet and a visiting specialist vet, is suitable but the current levels of routine attendance are inadequate for a collection of this size and complexity. Whilst Fletias Schraiber is a qualified vet she is not an MRCVS and cannot practice in UK, but her skills and training cannot be utilised in the development of the veterinary programme. If the current arrangement of two veterinary practices is to be continued then the levels of cover must be increased to the equivalent of one full day a week by a local vet with appropriate CPD and at least one full day a month by the specialist vet. Those visits must be established as routine (i.e. not call-outs) and involve the UK qualified vets in a wide range of initiatives, including preventative protocols such as screening/worming and vaccination, post mortem protocols, enclosure design, nutrition, vet records, etc. The veterinary visits, and any telephone advice given, must be fully documented.

Additional Conditions continued from next page:

21. In accordance with 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.13 of the SSSMP a full review of diets and nutrition across all species, in consultation with the veterinary consultants, must be carried out. Records of all diets and the changes made must be documented and kept. (6 months)

22. In accordance with 2.3 of the SSSMP the coroner of the Avian bear enclosure that tapers to a point (adjacent to the perimeter of the new rhino paddock) must be rounded off with the addition of fencing to prevent one bear being cornered by another in the event of conflict. (3 months)

23. The overall veterinary programme in the Zoo is inadequate and must be radically revised to bring it into line with modern zoo veterinary practice. In accordance with 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 of the SSSMP a written outline of this revised programme must be produced and submitted to the licensing authority, (3 months) and implemented. (See explanatory notes above).

24. The inspection team noted that there had been a number of reported incidents of the public being bitten by animals must be carried out and an action plan adopted to reduce the number of bites. A copy of the report and the action plan must be forwarded to the LA. (3 months)

25. In accordance with 1.30 of the SSSMP dedicated staff hand-washing facilities must be provided where raw meat is handled i.e. in the meat preparation area. (6 months)

26. In accordance with 1.3 and 1.5 of the SSSMP if the preparation of raw meat and raw fish is to continue in the same room it must take place in designated separate areas with separate utensils to avoid cross-contamination particularly of fish for the penguins. (1 month)

27. The details of the ethical review process must be recorded and must be made available to the zoo licensing process. (3 years)

28. Although a wire mesh has been nailed onto large areas of the wooden walkways, in many areas this is already coming loose, and will be a trip hazard. In other areas no non slip surface has been provided. In accordance with 8.15 SSSMP all walkways that are constructed of wood must have a surfaces that will prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable visitors falling or tripping. (6 months)

29. There are a number of prairie dogs free living, in burrows, in the top walk-through area where the perimeter fence is set into the ground only to a depth of 30cm. In accordance with 8.10 of the SSSMP if Prairie dogs are to continue to be kept in this area then a written risk assessment carried out by the veterinary consultant on the effectiveness of the perimeter fence must be undertaken. The site taken by the zoo to ensure that there will not be any escape must be documented. Copies of these reports must forwarded to the Local Authority. (6 months)

30. The practice of designing facilities for Category 1 animals, such as the rhino and giraffe, whereby the keepers have no option but to be in direct contact with the animal is not utilising up to date husbandry guidelines and can be a high risk to the keepers. In accordance with 1.5 and 5.1 of the SSSMP the design of the accommodation in the new Africa house must be such that keepers do not have to go into an enclosure with a Category 1 animal to be able to work safely, supply food or move them. It may be that with appropriate risk assessments and for certain specimens it may be possible to manage such Category 1 animals with contact, but a non-contact system must be available for new or proven aggressive animals or new staff.

31. Revised designs must be forwarded to the LA for approval prior to the accommodation being built. A written document detailing the changes that will be made to the current animal management and risk assessment plans must be forwarded to the LA. (3 months)

32. The Muck heap in the Rhino and Giraffe paddock must be moved sufficiently far from the perimeter fence to eliminate its potential use as an escape aid. (1 month)

33. Although a wire mesh has been nailed onto large areas of the wooden walkways, in many areas this is already coming loose, and will be a trip hazard. In other areas no non slip surface has been provided. In accordance with 8.15 SSSMP all walkways that are constructed of wood must have a surfaces that will prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable visitors falling or tripping. (6 months)

34. There are a number of prairie dogs free living, in burrows, in the top walk-through area where the perimeter fence is set into the ground only to a depth of 30cm. In accordance with 8.10 of the SSSMP if Prairie dogs are to continue to be kept in this area then a written risk assessment carried out by the veterinary consultant on the effectiveness of the perimeter fence must be undertaken. The site taken by the zoo to ensure that there will not be any escape must be documented. Copies of these reports must forwarded to the Local Authority. (6 months)

35. The practice of designing facilities for Category 1 animals, such as the rhino and giraffe, whereby the keepers have no option but to be in direct contact with the animal is not utilising up to date husbandry guidelines and can be a high risk to the keepers. In accordance with 1.5 and 5.1 of the SSSMP the design of the accommodation in the new Africa house must be such that keepers do not have to go into an enclosure with a Category 1 animal to be able to work safely, supply food or move them. It may be that with appropriate risk assessments and for certain specimens it may be possible to manage such Category 1 animals with contact, but a non-contact system must be available for new or proven aggressive animals or new staff.

36. Revised designs must be forwarded to the LA for approval prior to the accommodation being built. A written document detailing the changes that will be made to the current animal management and risk assessment plans must be forwarded to the LA. (3 months) Inspecting team’s recommendation to the local authority

Having inspected (name of zoo) South Lakes Safari Zoo

on: 17th and 18th November 2015

the inspecting team make the following recommendation:

Please tick appropriate box

- it is recommended that a licence be refused...

- it is recommended that the above collection be licensed in accordance with the ZLA 1981 subject to the conservation measures in section 1A

- it is recommended that the above collection be licensed in accordance with the ZLA 1981 subject to the conservation measures in section 1A and the following Additional Conditions (N.B. Additional Conditions must be clearly worded so as to be enforceable and a timescale applied for compliance)

- it is recommended that the following alterations be made to the above collection’s licence conditions

Additional Conditions (if appropriate)

Please see note 2 regarding recommendation for refusal of a licence. Renewal of a licence is recommended to be dependent on the above Additional Conditions being either complied with, or satisfactory progress towards compliance being made.

01. In several areas the perimeter fence is in poor condition with vegetation, in accordance with 6.7 and 6.8 of the ZSLMP all vegetation and trees in proximity to the perimeter fence must be cut back and maintained at no closer than 1.5m from the electric fencing. All high hedges, bushes and trees overhanging or near the perimeter fence must be kept cut back to prevent animals from escaping. (3 months)

02. Some of the tension support posts on the enclosures are visibly rotten. In accordance with 6.13 and 6.14 of the ZSLMP, the public wooden walkways and platforms must be designed to meet BS 5605:1996 and be able to cope with the heavy daily handling and maintenance of a safe condition. The effect of any vandalism or platform structures being removed in order to prevent prolonged periods should be assessed in terms of animal safety and structural stability. A programme of inspection, maintenance and structural repairs needs to be documented. (1 year)

03. In accordance with 2.20 and 2.34 of the ZSLMP, the public must be made aware of the existence of the enclosed perimeter fence and appropriate measures taken to prevent animals from escaping. This must be achieved in a timely basis and be provided to the licensing authority open access. (1 year)

04. In accordance with 3.26 of the ZSLMP all staff involved in power working surfaces used by animals must wear appropriate PPE against animal infection, e.g. gloves, goggles etc. Clear written instructions to staff must be enforced. (1 year)

05. The indoor facilities for the Amur Bear are inadequate. In accordance with 4.3 and 4.4 of the ZSLMP the indoor housing areas for the Amur Bear must be redeveloped and refer to being their specification in the wild with maximum husbandry requirements. The indoor facility must be suitable for the separation and direct visual assessment of bears, adequate ventilation, access for veterinary management, disease control for example, and a level of separation that prevents noise to bear, or visual contact with other species in the main house. (1 month)

06. In accordance with paragraphs 5.1 and 10.1 of the ZSLMP all staff who work with newly arrived non-native species (e.g. animals listed in Category 1 of the Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) must undergo a period of recorded training at a facility already holding the species. Evidence of this training must be forwarded to the licensing authority prior to the animal arriving. (1 month)

07. In accordance with 4.3 and 4.4 of the ZSLMP the indoor facilities for the group of baboons is insufficient and must be upgraded or expanded to provide increased space for the animals when they are in for prolonged periods, e.g. during the winter. The indoor facilities must also allow for a developed programme of enrichment, e.g. deep snow and substrate flooding. (2 years)

08. Any enrichment activities for public viewing must be in accordance with the ZSLMP and must not be the subject of a written request from members and public visitors present on appropriate. (1 month)

09. Although there are signs of the park providing direct public contact with the lemurs this is to be single photograph at the entrance showing (and legally ensuring) appropriate public contact. This sign must be removed or replaced. (1 month)

10. A licence is in good standing with appropriate instructions to be provided to the park. (3 months)

11. In accordance with 3.1 of the ZSLMP the fencing by either must be provided in the existing building plans. (2 months)

12. The existing enclosures, or housing of non-native species, within the existing facility must be improved to ensure the collection is in poor condition and meet the needs of the species. In accordance with 2.18, 2.21 of the ZSLMP written permission must be provided with advice from the veterinary consultants, for the housing and enclosure of any animals introduced to the collection or accepted as non-native animals. Staff must receive training on the procedures and risk assessment (this must be documented, 6 months)

13. There is a need for the welfare control in the day to day animal care specifically and more generally throughout the park in all departments. In accordance with 1.3a and 2.10 of the Secretary of State’s Standards of Management Practice (ZSLMP) a welfare audit must be conducted and a report submitted to the licensing authority. (6 months)

14. The mean ‘score’ providing tenure access to an animal’s enclosure in the Amur Bear house is inadequate, and the current arrangement may prevent a visit. In accordance with 2.4 of the ZSLMP all plant and fixed equipment, including electrical equipment, must be installed and maintained in such a way that they do not present a hazard to animals, and that safe operation cannot be disrupted by them. (1 month)

15. The location in the main bear house must be protected from the public by installing the necessary equipment. In accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the ZSLMP the enclosures must be maintained in a condition which prevents the likelihood of bears to escape. (1 month)

16. In accordance with 2.4 and 8.8 of the ZSLMP all non-native species, e.g. a stand of bamboo, for the public must be provided at the area of Amur Bear viewing in proximity to their access to the area. (3 months)

17. In accordance with 4.4 of the ZSLMP the top form of the house has an effective public barrier for preventing access to the house and its doors. The house and enclosure must be kept locked at all times when no keeper is present. (immediately)

18. The temporary enclosures made of metal gates, pallets and steel tubes in the African House is completely inadequate and has resulted in escapes into the house. In accordance with 2.3, 6.6, 8.7 of the ZSLMP this must be made secure to prevent further escapes. (immediately)

19. During the completion of the indoor enclosures of the African house the animals already present in the outside enclosures, occasionally, cannot or will not use the African House for shelter. In accordance with 2.2 of the ZSLMP additional shelter must be provided to the animals to accommodate all species. (1 month)

20. A review of the African enclosures was undertaken, and the fencing of the poor housing house is in poor condition. In accordance with 2.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the ZSLMP the foot in the Flamingo House must be the subject of an inspection by the veterinary consultants and submersion flooding/leakage put in place to improve the health of the flamingo flock. (6 months)

Date signed

5.1.2016

S. Jan

05.01.2016

Page 12 of 13 The Data Protection Act 1998 – Fair Processing Notice

The purpose of this Fair Processing Notice is to inform you of the use that will be made of your personal data, as required by the Data Protection Act 1998.

The local authority in England (or in Wales as the case may be) is the data controller in respect of any personal data that you provide when you complete this zoo inspection form. The information that you provide may be used by the local authority in its consideration of issuing or amending a zoo licence in accordance with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (ZLA). The local authority may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs) or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). However, local authorities will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality nor act in contravention of their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

Where the zoo, to which this inspection report applies, is owned by the local authority, the local authority must send a copy of the completed form to Defra (in accordance with section 13(2) of the ZLA) where the zoo is situated in England, or to the Welsh Government where the zoo is situated in Wales. Defra or the Welsh Government (as the case may be) may use the information contained in the form to ensure that local authorities are carrying out their duties correctly in accordance with the ZLA.

Defra and the Welsh Government are also subject to the EIRs and the FOIA and so may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request. However, as above, Defra and the Welsh Government will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality nor act in contravention of their obligations under the DPA.